Last week, in my article “Greeks bearing gifts”, I asked a number of questions about the proposed “waste-to-energy” project seemingly being placed on a fast track by the Government of Anguilla. My questions were based on a genuine concern for the hurried approach being adopted by the GoA in pursuing this solution. I was therefore very happy to see an article, in “Mitigation Outlook”, a quarterly newsletter published by the Department of Disaster Management (DDM), on the subject, entitled: “Is Waste-to-Energy, The Best Option for Anguilla”. It was gratifying to know that the DDM also felt strongly about the proposal and decided to make it the first article on the front page of its March–May publication.
The Newsletter basically gives a few important facts about the process and encourages us to come to our own conclusions. In the final paragraph, however, the author quotes the legislation enacted in the United States regarding “waste-to energy” systems. There he/she states: “The Clean Air Act of 1999 bans the incineration of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste which results in toxic and poisonous fumes. Furthermore the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 required the adoption of best environmental practices in ecological waste management and exclude incineration.” Obviously, fifteen years ago, the idea of incineration of waste in the United States was considered a very dangerous undertaking and therefore appropriate legislation was enacted to restrict its use. From another book, entitled “False Solutions to Climate Change”, the author further reports that “the incineration industry has rebranded itself and is selling new types of expensive incinerators with fancy names, which often create more greenhouse gases and toxic by-products than traditional incinerators”. As a matter of fact, the article suggests that “incinerator pushers” are using the climate issue as an additional platform to peddle their polluting technologies.
At the risk of being repetitious, I have therefore decided to spend some more time evaluating the waste-to-energy proposal because of our vulnerability as an island and the serious consequences that this issue may involve. I clearly appreciate that there are international groups that oppose any form of incineration and are organized primarily for that purpose. However, on the other hand, the companies that are promoting the usage of these systems seem to place more emphasis on the merits of a cheaper form of energy production than on the consequences of the process. Their response to these hazards is simply to assure us how they can be mitigated or reduced rather than eliminated.
One of the main concerns that Anguilla residents generally, and particularly those in the immediate vicinity to the operation, should have is the fact that no one has a clue as to what is in the waste at the Corito Landfill site. For years we have been operating the landfill without proper supervision of the sorting process for the various kinds of solid wastes. Since the intention is to also use waste that was buried many years ago, this will present a further serious challenge to the operators. How will they know for certain what they are actually incinerating? It will therefore be virtually impossible for any operator to give us any real guarantees that there will be no hazardous by-products of the process. We cannot afford that kind of guessing game.
As the elected representative for those persons living in the vicinity of Corito; The Forest; Rey Hill; Long Ground; Statia Valley; George Hill; and Little Harbour, for some twenty-five years, I have always commented on the number of hazards those residents face. The area is the location of the Power Station; the Bulk Fuel Depot; the Airport; several tall Radio Transmitting Antennas; the Landfill site; a Marl Excavation and Crusher Operation; and the proposed site for the Deep Water Harbour facility. It would appear that every hazardous activity or facility is located in that area. In the circumstances, I would expect that we should be trying to cut back on any operations that could further exacerbate these problems. And doing more public consultations with those persons on any new activity that could have that effect. That is why I am concerned that the present elected representative, who actually lives in the area and who in the past has been very vocal about issues affecting the health of those residents, is aggressively supporting this latest proposal despite the very possible negative consequences.
It must be noted that the past AUF Government made significant strides in the development of Alternative/Renewable Energy policies and legislation in the context of this very important issue. The stage was therefore already set for making real progress with the implementation of alternative energy systems both in the public and private sector. In fact, as we speak, The Reef at Cuisinart is on the verge of completing a multi-million dollar solar project with the capacity to generate one megawatt of electricity for its various operations. There are also a number of private individuals and businesses, that are seeking the approval from Government to participate in this sector, that are facing hurdles. This is ironic given Government’s haste to implement this recent waste-to-energy proposal — a proposal that has the potential to be extremely dangerous.
The idea of a green/environmentally friendly society is an important selling tool for our Tourism Industry which is the driver of our economy. We should also understand that most of the visitors who come to our shores are very much aware of the hazards associated with such incineration undertakings. For such visitors the kind of operations that we, as a Government, encourage is an important issue in their decision on whether or not to come to Anguilla. It is therefore foolhardy to risk implementing a project that could jeopardize our efforts to attract quality clientele to our destination. But it is even more foolhardy to expose our population to the dangerous health issues associated with this proposal when there are other more friendly alternatives available for providing energy production.
When we consider that the other alternatives (which include solar energy; wind energy; wave action energy and so on) are all infinite sources, we must question this hurried approach to accepting the waste-to-energy proposal even more. That proposal depends on our ability as a community to generate waste and, as a consequence, its sustainability depends on a source that is limited. What do we do when we run out of combustible waste? It may not be as farfetched, as has been suggested, that in such an eventuality we may need to import waste for that purpose. That is a consequence that is both unimaginable and scary. But we must remember that it is being proposed that the equipment will be supplied at no cost to the GoA. The other side of such an agreement could be the requirement that sufficient waste must be available at all times. At all times could also be interpreted as by all means. These are the realities that we may have to deal with when this “Trojan Horse” enters our city gates.
I believe that it is clear that we, as a community, need to pay more attention to these issues, and I must commend the Department of Disaster Management and its staff for providing important information on this proposal. This could be the time when it is necessary “to look a gift horse in the mouth!”